K. Ganesh Babu v. State of Karnataka

,

Read Judgment : https://lawyerslibrary.in/books/ybjf/

Citation: NC: 2025:KHC:15120, CRL.P No. 4132 of 2025
Court: High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru
Date: April 9, 2025
Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Hemant Chandangoudar

Criminal Procedure – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 – Section 379 – Offences Affecting Administration of Justice – Procedural Requirements.

The High Court set aside an order of the trial court directing registration of a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition for alleged perjury under Section 379 read with Section 215 of BNSS, 2023, due to the trial court’s failure to form a judicial opinion or record findings that an inquiry was expedient in the interest of justice. Held, Section 379 mandates a reasoned judicial opinion and recorded findings before initiating a complaint for offences like false affidavits. Absence of such compliance renders the order procedurally unsustainable. Petition allowed; matter remanded for reconsideration within one week.

Maintainability – Inherent Powers – Section 482 (Section 528 BNSS)

Where a trial court’s order under Section 379 does not involve a finding or opinion and is not appealable under Section 380, the High Court’s inherent powers under Section 482 (Section 528 BNSS) can be invoked to challenge procedural irregularities.

Facts

The petitioner, K. Ganesh Babu, challenged an order dated January 23, 2025, passed by the V Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in O.S. No. 8729/2004. The trial court directed the registration of a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition based on an application (IA No. 26) filed by the plaintiffs under Section 379 read with Section 215 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, alleging that the petitioner (defendant No. 11) filed a false affidavit amounting to perjury. The petitioner argued that the trial court failed to form a judicial opinion or record findings as required under Section 379 before issuing the direction.

Issues

  1. Whether the trial court’s order directing the registration of a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition complied with the procedural requirements of Section 379 of the BNSS, 2023.
  2. Whether the petitioner could challenge the trial court’s order under the inherent powers of the High Court, given the absence of a statutory appellate remedy under Section 380 of the BNSS.

Holding

The High Court allowed the criminal petition and set aside the trial court’s order dated January 23, 2025. The matter was remanded to the trial court for reconsideration in accordance with the law within one week.

Reasoning

  1. Procedural Non-Compliance with Section 379:
    • Section 379 of the BNSS, 2023, requires a court to form an opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice to inquire into an offence under Section 215 (offences affecting the administration of justice, such as perjury) and to record a finding to that effect before directing a complaint.
    • The trial court’s order lacked a judicial opinion or specific findings, rendering it procedurally unsustainable. The court merely directed the registration of a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition without adhering to the statutory safeguards.
  2. Distinguishing Precedents:
    • The respondent relied on Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah and Pritish v. State of Maharashtra [(2002) 1 SCC 253], which held that a preliminary inquiry or hearing of the accused is not mandatory before filing a complaint. The High Court found these cases distinguishable, as they did not address the requirement of forming a judicial opinion under Section 379.
    • The petitioner cited Amarsang Nathaji v. Hardik Harshadbhai Patel, where the Supreme Court emphasized that a court must conclude it is expedient in the interest of justice to initiate an inquiry for offences like false affidavits. This precedent supported the petitioner’s argument.
  3. Absence of Appellate Remedy:
    • Section 380 of the BNSS limits appeals to orders refusing or directing a complaint after forming a requisite opinion. Since the trial court’s order did not involve such a finding, it was not appealable under Section 380.
    • The High Court held that the petitioner could invoke its inherent powers under Section 482 (now Section 528 of BNSS) to challenge the procedurally flawed order.

Disposition

  • The criminal petition was allowed.
  • The trial court’s order dated January 23, 2025, was set aside.
  • The trial court was directed to reconsider the application under Section 379 read with Section 215 of the BNSS and pass an appropriate order within one week from the receipt of the High Court’s order.

Key Legal Principle

Under Section 379 of the BNSS, 2023, a court must form a reasoned judicial opinion that an inquiry into an offence affecting the administration of justice is expedient and record findings before directing a complaint. Failure to comply with these procedural safeguards renders such an order liable to be set aside.

Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs)

  1. What was the primary issue in K. Ganesh Babu v. State of Karnataka?
    a) Validity of a false affidavit filed by the petitioner
    b) Procedural compliance of the trial court’s order under Section 379 of BNSS, 2023
    c) Jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 380 of BNSS
    d) Maintainability of the criminal petition under Section 215 of BNSSAnswer: b) Procedural compliance of the trial court’s order under Section 379 of BNSS, 2023
  2. Why did the High Court set aside the trial court’s order dated January 23, 2025?
    a) The trial court lacked jurisdiction to register a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition
    b) The trial court failed to form a judicial opinion or record findings as required under Section 379
    c) The petitioner was not given a hearing before the order was passed
    d) The application under Section 379 was filed by an unauthorized partyAnswer: b) The trial court failed to form a judicial opinion or record findings as required under Section 379
  3. Which section of the BNSS, 2023, corresponds to Section 340 of the Cr.P.C., 1973?
    a) Section 215
    b) Section 379
    c) Section 380
    d) Section 528Answer: b) Section 379
  4. What remedy did the petitioner seek in the High Court?
    a) Quashing of the original suit (O.S. No. 8729/2004)
    b) Setting aside the trial court’s order directing registration of a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition
    c) An appeal under Section 380 of BNSS
    d) A preliminary inquiry into the respondents’ conductAnswer: b) Setting aside the trial court’s order directing registration of a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition
  5. Under what provision did the High Court find the petition maintainable?
    a) Section 380 of BNSS
    b) Section 215 of BNSS
    c) Inherent powers under Section 482 (Section 528 BNSS)
    d) Appellate jurisdiction under Section 379Answer: c) Inherent powers under Section 482 (Section

528 BNSS)

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q1: What was the basis of the petitioner’s challenge in K. Ganesh Babu v. State of Karnataka?
A: The petitioner challenged the trial court’s order dated January 23, 2025, which directed the registration of a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition for alleged perjury under Section 379 read with Section 215 of BNSS, 2023. The challenge was based on the trial court’s failure to form a judicial opinion or record findings that an inquiry was expedient in the interest of justice, as mandated by Section 379.

Q2: What does Section 379 of the BNSS, 2023, require before a court can initiate a complaint for offences like perjury?
A: Section 379 requires the court to: (i) form an opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice to inquire into the alleged offence, and (ii) record a finding to that effect before directing a complaint to be registered. These procedural safeguards ensure judicial application of mind.

Q3: Why was the trial court’s order considered procedurally unsustainable?
A: The trial court’s order was unsustainable because it directed the registration of a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition without forming a judicial opinion or recording findings, as required under Section 379 of BNSS, 2023. This lack of compliance with statutory requirements violated procedural mandates.

Q4: Why was the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 (Section 528 BNSS) invoked?
A: The trial court’s order was not appealable under Section 380 of BNSS, as it neither refused nor directed a complaint after forming a requisite opinion. In the absence of a statutory appellate remedy, the petitioner invoked the High Court’s inherent powers under Section 482 (Section 528 BNSS) to challenge the procedurally flawed order.

Q5: What was the outcome of the case?
A: The High Court allowed the criminal petition, set aside the trial court’s order dated January 23, 2025, and directed the trial court to reconsider the application under Section 379 read with Section 215 of BNSS, 2023, and pass an appropriate order in accordance with the law within one week.

, , , ,